Upper Control Arm
- Thread starter Don57
- Start date
- Status
Oh look!
https://www.medievalchassis.com/product-category/front-suspension/
A bunch of springs not from Moog with listed dimensions and rates (above the norm too). Front and rear! For the same money!
Guess I know what I am going to do again this Winter... put the weight jackers back in the wagon.
----On topic---
Still trying to get more info on the wedge plates as there isn't much out there on their use on road... you'd think the need was designed into the BJs? This is the first time I've ever run across them.
This is more involved than I thought. I was going to run spohn tubular lca's with .5" taller lower ball joints and the stock upper arms with .5 taller ubj's figuring it should all be bolt on at that point. I noticed there are also low friction taller ball joints would these be beneficial for a street car?
Never opened any circle track catalog?
Medieval has a cool story
The wedge plates are for cars really burying the RF, running light springs and coil binding them, tons of people have ran stock arms with tall upper and lowers and not bent pins.
Also all the medieval ball joints are QA1
[
Yes...and no. They'll physically bolt together and you could drive the car around but there's a catch or two. There's the fact that the original arms on A, G and 1st Gen F body cars were originally designed to droop down over the frame and have the ball joints at the proper angle for a full range of travel. Once you lower the car, go to taller spindles or ball joints etc. the arms end up closer to level and the ball joints end up close to binding at ride height. Hitting a big bump can bind up the ball joints and put a tremendous amount of stress on them as well as the upper A arms and A arm mounting bolts. They'll only take that for so long before something fails...
Much of it also has to do with alignment. A lot of folks think if their car goes straight and doesn't chew up the tires that it's aligned properly and working as well as it can. They're kidding themselves and they're missing out on a LOT of performance. The alignment specs recommended in the `60s and `70s (and even `80s!) were anything but performance oriented. In fact they've changed little since the 1940s. Today almost every car is using power steering and we're all running high performance radial tires (except for the resto guys but that's another story...) these tires are often more than twice the width of the originals, we've also got another 40 years or so of experience to draw on. What's more, once we've corrected the geometry so that it works like a new performance car it demands the same type of alignment those cars run to achieve peak performance.
Modern performance cars run a LOT more + caster and - camber. The + caster helps the cars track better at highway speeds and gives better steering feel. The - camber helps keep the tire's contact patch flat on the road surface during cornering. It's part of what makes new cars drive like new cars. Using these kinds of settings on older cars yields a BIG improvement in drivability and performance but because they were designed around different specs it's usually impossible to attain the best numbers with stock parts and shims. Lowering the car or increasing the effective spindle height with taller spindles or taller ball joints all add more + camber making it ever harder to dial in a - camber setting (which is what we want). That's the big reason for different upper arms. The taller spindles or tall ball joints make the big geometry improvements and the proper upper A arms make it possible to combine the new parts and geometry with the proper performance alignment, an unbeatable combination!
Need technical assistance? Call us. 317-408-4272
WWW.SOUTHSIDEMACHINEPERFORMANCE.COM
QUOTE="buzz77, post: 639707, member: 16915"]Any idea if the stock uppers can take a taller ball joint when lowers also have a .5 taller ball joint? Gotten mixed feedback on this.[/QUOTE]
Yes...and no. They'll physically bolt together and you could drive the car around but there's a catch or two. There's the fact that the original arms on A, G and 1st Gen F body cars were originally designed to droop down over the frame and have the ball joints at the proper angle for a full range of travel. Once you lower the car, go to taller spindles or ball joints etc. the arms end up closer to level and the ball joints end up close to binding at ride height. Hitting a big bump can bind up the ball joints and put a tremendous amount of stress on them as well as the upper A arms and A arm mounting bolts. They'll only take that for so long before something fails...
Much of it also has to do with alignment. A lot of folks think if their car goes straight and doesn't chew up the tires that it's aligned properly and working as well as it can. They're kidding themselves and they're missing out on a LOT of performance. The alignment specs recommended in the `60s and `70s (and even `80s!) were anything but performance oriented. In fact they've changed little since the 1940s. Today almost every car is using power steering and we're all running high performance radial tires (except for the resto guys but that's another story...) these tires are often more than twice the width of the originals, we've also got another 40 years or so of experience to draw on. What's more, once we've corrected the geometry so that it works like a new performance car it demands the same type of alignment those cars run to achieve peak performance.
Modern performance cars run a LOT more + caster and - camber. The + caster helps the cars track better at highway speeds and gives better steering feel. The - camber helps keep the tire's contact patch flat on the road surface during cornering. It's part of what makes new cars drive like new cars. Using these kinds of settings on older cars yields a BIG improvement in drivability and performance but because they were designed around different specs it's usually impossible to attain the best numbers with stock parts and shims. Lowering the car or increasing the effective spindle height with taller spindles or taller ball joints all add more + camber making it ever harder to dial in a - camber setting (which is what we want). That's the big reason for different upper arms. The taller spindles or tall ball joints make the big geometry improvements and the proper upper A arms make it possible to combine the new parts and geometry with the proper performance alignment, an unbeatable combination!
Need technical assistance? Call us. 317-408-4272
WWW.SOUTHSIDEMACHINEPERFORMANCE.COM
QUOTE="buzz77, post: 639707, member: 16915"]Any idea if the stock uppers can take a taller ball joint when lowers also have a .5 taller ball joint? Gotten mixed feedback on this.[/QUOTE]
The reason for lowering the car is to get the upper past the horizontal point so you get increase negative camber as soon as that corner is being depressed,
[/QUOTE]
The next question then is what is the advantages and disadvantages of a 0.5 compared to 1.0 inch taller upper ball joint. My car will be for street use. Also I understand the reason for adjustable UCA's. Will the non-adjustable aftermarket upper a-arms be able to accommodate wheel alignment adjustments?
The next question then is what is the advantages and disadvantages of a 0.5 compared to 1.0 inch taller upper ball joint. My car will be for street use. Also I understand the reason for adjustable UCA's. Will the non-adjustable aftermarket upper a-arms be able to accommodate wheel alignment adjustments?[/QUOTE]
We build our UCA's around a tall effective spindle height (tall spindles and or a tall ball joint) set up. No adjustable upper arms required. The difference between .5" and 1" upper ball joints is simply the amount of negative camber gain during suspension travel. The 1/2" taller lower ball joint will raise roll center, virtually eliminate bump steer (with the right alignment) and lower the center of gravity. In a perfect world the G-Body platform performs extremely well to a spindle height of 2" taller than factory. At this time there isn't a spindle for that (it is coming soon though) and that's just too much reach for ballpoints to perform. Both our regular and Pro series stage 2 front end kits work for street and track with no compromises.
https://southsidemachineperformance.com/t/gm-g-body-1978-1988
- Status
Similar threads
